DeepSeek DeepSeek VL2 vs Google Gemma 3n E4B
Detailed comparison for LLMs
DeepSeek DeepSeek VL2 and Google Gemma 3n E4B are evenly matched at about 52.0% attack success rate (ASR) on Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark. One or both scores are estimated from public safety evaluations pending a Guardion benchmark run.
Head-to-Head Overview
It's a close match between DeepSeek VL2 and Gemma 3n E4B!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for DeepSeek DeepSeek VL2 vs Google Gemma 3n E4B. Green marks the safer model on each metric. Only the overall score is available for estimated models.
Overall (ASR)
TAP Attack Method (ASR)
Crescendo Attack Method (ASR)
Zero-Shot (ASR)
Key Highlights
No specific highlights generated for this comparison.
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek DeepSeek VL2 or Google Gemma 3n E4B more secure?
DeepSeek DeepSeek VL2 and Google Gemma 3n E4B are evenly matched at about 52.0% attack success rate (ASR) on Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark. One or both scores are estimated from public safety evaluations pending a Guardion benchmark run.
What is the attack success rate (ASR) of DeepSeek VL2 vs Gemma 3n E4B?
DeepSeek VL2 has a 52.0% ASR and Gemma 3n E4B has a 52.0% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were DeepSeek VL2 and Gemma 3n E4B tested?
Both were red-teamed with the HarmBench framework across zero-shot, TAP (Tree of Attacks with Pruning), and Crescendo multi-turn attacks, scored by Attack Success Rate.